Skip to 14:30 if you saw what was previously known as "Part 1"! I've decided to merge these together as it's more succint. Big fat whopper productions work better than small episodic ones I think. What would've been "Part 3" will get its own production in the not too distant future. 💛
If bill didnt have the same voting power, people would simply let him starve! The type of person you are talking about is typically disabled, has a broken theory of mind, and must resort to hedonism to maintain even a semblance of sanity! These people would greatly benefit from a study group of any academically or at least cognitively enriching course. Also, political realism dictates if we attempted this, your vote would literally be every dollar you had, or would be insanely skewed by billionaires. You didn’t quite touch on that in your analysis, though do relatively directly understand that academia is corrupt in its nepotistic kleptocracy.
@@HD-mp6yy No, aristocracy is better than what we have now. Aristocracy acknowledges who rules and how they must behave. What we have now is more of a satrapy under foreign interests. Aristocracies care about what happens to their homeland, and won't extract from it purely for their own profit.
@@NJHProductions512if you restrict the vote to landowners then congratulations, you only let boomers and Blackrock vote, and nobody else. How is that a good thing?
Owning a land while useful as it restricts vote from incompetent doesn't really eliminate character flaws. An alternative is a bonding license to vote with voluntary civil service.
The Spanish PM from 2004 to 2011 promised everyone "a home and a computer". Needless to say, he did not follow on his promise, I feel scammed even though he didn't get my vote.
Your content is highly underrated, undersubbed, and underviewed. I hope that changes. Im loving these. Ive been binging your videos while I drive. Great stuff
In the end, functional democracy is just an amplifier of the quality of its citizens. Given a population with values aligning with the success of civilization, democracies thrive. Given a population with no values or worse, values aligning with the dissolution of civilization, democracies crash.
Hmmm, I wonder have you ever looked into the Swiss system. It's even slower then the US/British way, but having multiple parties, and a council as executive branch (not only one president) does allow it to be more for the people. Add to that the possibility to vote 3-4 times a year on a divers set of laws, seems to give the people the most power in any country I know. I'd love to see you do an analysis on it
The issue is that these systems aren't universal. Meaning the same system won't produce the same outcomes in two different countries. The swiss system works because they're extremely ethnically homogenous, have almost no history of being invaded, and have a small, insular population with extremely high trust. Democracy is much the same, you need a population that meets very specific requirements in order for democracy to actually produce good outcomes.
@@Mallard942 "Extremely ethnically homogenous", says man about a country with four official languages and one of the biggest percentage of immigrants in Europe XD
@@aleksandralazarek7141 Oh wow, the insane cultural differences of Northern Italians, French and Germans. Roma are a very low percentage of the population and they have virtually no power.
Again that doesn't address a single issue of the democratic system. The Swiss are going the same direction as the rest of Western democracies, it's just "late to the party". Just look at when they finalized the equal vote to women or when they legalized homosexual marriage. The only reason why democracies in Europe and Westernized countries didn't almost immediately collapse is because of homogeneity, high IQ and high trust as well as the common religion of the mass. Now we don't have homogeneity, our IQs are rapidly falling, we don't have high trust and we don't have a common religion.
When the United States was founded, only land owners were allowed to vote. The reason was because the founders figured only people who actually have skin in the game should be the ones dictating how the game is played. After all, if everyone had the right to vote, people will just vote to take from producers in order to enrich themselves. Furthermore, our founders had great disdain for pure democracies for that reason. "Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." And despite atheists claiming that we were founded on secularism, it is the founders who stated that our form of government can only work with 'a religious and moral people." Given our current culture, I believe that democracy is a terrible system.
‘Democracy’ to socialists/communists are self-evident. So the ‘German Democratic Republic’ and the ‘Democratic Republic of North Korea’ are so-called democratic because socialism, according to a socialist, represents the views of the majority since it advocates their interests. Democracy is not voting; democracy is the concept of the demos - the people - being represented. Voting is an independent, although often aligned, concept. This is why I do not refer to myself as a democrat or democracy advocate. I rather the term ‘voting advocate.’
Ok, so democracy has flaws. How do we minimize them (wince we will never fully get rid of those flaws)? I think combining the legislative branch with the executive branch of government would help the decision making process faster. But I do not know enough as to what consequences that would hold. I also think increasing term limits to say something between 10 and 20 years would largely get rid of the short term obsessions and maybe somewhat the party capture. Again this might have consequences that I don't know of. What do you guys think would happen should these changes be made?
Lucky enough, I waited until a part 2 would come out to watch one after the other, not knowing until now that you combined them into one coeherant video. But it was to be known that it would be worth it, cause your great analysis into the democratic system and its breackdown about its flaws is so well done as usual. I wonder if there will be a similar analysis on Conservatism. Always a pleasure to see your videos Alex with the great work it always delivers and eagerly waiting on the next topic. KEEP IT COMING AS ALWAYS.
I think that a direct democracy, such as the political system in Switzerland, is the best option. Much better than the American system anyways, which can hardly be called a democracy.
imagine if organizations started to function as a democracy - so in a hospital, let's have a vote on how to proceed during surgery, everyone votes, the janitor, the cook from the canteen, the cleaner,,,,,,luckily no organization in the real world is a democracy
democracy is the least worst system so far. What this video wants are good kings, people who are good people who can make decisions fast. Hypothetically if you had a perfect King you could never be gurantees that the heir would do just as good a job.
Thats not true. First of all, if you look at the US, it can only work for CHristian People, because the country was founded for exactly this population. And the constitution can only work if the population shares Christian values and God. The separation of Church and State was that the State cannot interfere with Church business. That's why the Country has to this day some blasphemy laws left. Implicit power is just as bad as explicit power. A democracy can just as well be a dictatorship, a dictatorship doesn't need a single Party or a leader. All it has to do is that the Institutions give the People the illusion of choice and Power. Like in the US. Guns for example. They are just a prop and nothing more. I rather let democracy die and have a Country wich gets ruled by one, moral Code, with one big Mythos Above them that the nation tries to reach. That's more sustainable than a democracy with a ton of different Parties, slow progress, changing faces and changing Culture every few decades. And with no shared values and goal. If you fear bad People from coming into Power, you are f***ed either way. If you want to mitigate that, you cant allow everyone to vote just because they exist. They need to contribute something first.
I think this is why religions like christianity say that ultimately God has to be king. A perfect and eternal being is the only one that can actually make a monarchy work (hence theocracy). Not even David or Solomon could pull it off.
Dilemma: This soon to be brand new comer wants to blow this channel up, and hopefully help Alex make lots of $, but, as an avid listener to the Nietzsche Podcast, I understand the desire to keep something “special”, after all, & isn’t everything. But, in these ever increasingly dark times, $ is the type of armor that is needed. Good God this makes me sad, whatever/nevermind. 🐌🐌🐌
27:03 and often to terrific results too, but I guess this is not as important to mention? 27:08 sometimes through no fault of its own, say, as in the forceful destitution of the regime by outside powers after being engaged in a war with half of the world, for example.
It doesn't have to be THAT slow. What I've seen in the Netherlands is that once the decision is made tasks that were previously claimed to take ages could be done in a matter of days. But yeah, the video makes good points.
The longest lasting civilization in history that only really fell once it started ignoring the values it was founded upon? Sounds pretty fucking based to me.
Its not utopian idealism to give one person one vote--its a tried and tested means of ensuring that the entire population is given representation. Which yes, has downsides--downsides that are far milder than the downsides of other methods of determining merit to vote.
@@whodarboilebamnames3990but that's under the assumption that smart people won't try to correct these things through things like education, and checks and balances which every single democracy has. The problem with democracy comes in when the incentive to lead people stems from money
@@looseleaf8721 And those democracies are exactly what I'm referring to as evidence that giving millions of midwits the vote results in dysfunctional governance.
@@looseleaf8721 Except stupid people VASTLY outweigh the counterweight in this example. Not only is it easier to be stupid and uninformed, it’s easier than ever to keep you stupid and uninformed. And stupid and uninformed people often make brash and poor choices, which usually means they also reproduce at a MUCH higher rate.
Democracy doesnt inherently split people into groups. When people have freedom of thought, youre going to get differing views and opinions. Its simply the best way to let people hash it out. Aristotle said it best "democracy is best when the people are virtuous"
![Honest Government Ad | Democracy™ [Blocked in 🇮🇳]](/img/n.gif)
Skip to 14:30 if you saw what was previously known as "Part 1"!
I've decided to merge these together as it's more succint. Big fat whopper productions work better than small episodic ones I think. What would've been "Part 3" will get its own production in the not too distant future. 💛
Thank you Alex for being so amazing
If bill didnt have the same voting power, people would simply let him starve! The type of person you are talking about is typically disabled, has a broken theory of mind, and must resort to hedonism to maintain even a semblance of sanity! These people would greatly benefit from a study group of any academically or at least cognitively enriching course. Also, political realism dictates if we attempted this, your vote would literally be every dollar you had, or would be insanely skewed by billionaires. You didn’t quite touch on that in your analysis, though do relatively directly understand that academia is corrupt in its nepotistic kleptocracy.
Pros: the people get to decide how the country is run
Cons: the people get to decide how the country is run
I fail to see the upsides to that Pros section...
“But the people are stupid”
We will horseshoe back around to an aristocracy
Aristocracy exists in any human society it's only that some don't acknowledge it.
We haven't already?
We are already in a plutocracy.
You missed something, aristocracy never declined.
@@HD-mp6yy
No, aristocracy is better than what we have now.
Aristocracy acknowledges who rules and how they must behave.
What we have now is more of a satrapy under foreign interests.
Aristocracies care about what happens to their homeland, and won't extract from it purely for their own profit.
Theres a reason the Founding Fathers didnt create a democracy. Limited the vote as they did to landowners.
To which we should return, also maybe with the addition of those who can be drafted into war.
@@NJHProductions512if you restrict the vote to landowners then congratulations, you only let boomers and Blackrock vote, and nobody else. How is that a good thing?
Owning a land while useful as it restricts vote from incompetent doesn't really eliminate character flaws. An alternative is a bonding license to vote with voluntary civil service.
@@cadis4257 do that and the only people able to vote will be boomers and b L. A. C. K. Rock. How is that a good thing???
The Spanish PM from 2004 to 2011 promised everyone "a home and a computer". Needless to say, he did not follow on his promise, I feel scammed even though he didn't get my vote.
Your content is highly underrated, undersubbed, and underviewed.
I hope that changes. Im loving these.
Ive been binging your videos while I drive. Great stuff
Same, haha. I don’t know how I’ve never found this channel before, it’s actually amazing. Reminds me a bit of whatifalthist
Same, haha. I don’t know how I’ve never found this channel before, it’s actually amazing. Reminds me a bit of whatifalthist
@@NJHProductions512 Insulting to compare Alex to whatifslophistory
@@ungabunga3183 To which one? I love them both, though I don't always agree with everything they both have to say. I thought it a complement.
you should look into making a production focused on birthrates
In the end, functional democracy is just an amplifier of the quality of its citizens. Given a population with values aligning with the success of civilization, democracies thrive. Given a population with no values or worse, values aligning with the dissolution of civilization, democracies crash.
I LOVE bills buns
Hmmm, I wonder have you ever looked into the Swiss system. It's even slower then the US/British way, but having multiple parties, and a council as executive branch (not only one president) does allow it to be more for the people. Add to that the possibility to vote 3-4 times a year on a divers set of laws, seems to give the people the most power in any country I know. I'd love to see you do an analysis on it
The issue is that these systems aren't universal. Meaning the same system won't produce the same outcomes in two different countries.
The swiss system works because they're extremely ethnically homogenous, have almost no history of being invaded, and have a small, insular population with extremely high trust.
Democracy is much the same, you need a population that meets very specific requirements in order for democracy to actually produce good outcomes.
@@Mallard942 "Extremely ethnically homogenous", says man about a country with four official languages and one of the biggest percentage of immigrants in Europe XD
Hey, the Romans had Co-Consuls. It was great!
@@aleksandralazarek7141 Oh wow, the insane cultural differences of Northern Italians, French and Germans. Roma are a very low percentage of the population and they have virtually no power.
Again that doesn't address a single issue of the democratic system. The Swiss are going the same direction as the rest of Western democracies, it's just "late to the party". Just look at when they finalized the equal vote to women or when they legalized homosexual marriage.
The only reason why democracies in Europe and Westernized countries didn't almost immediately collapse is because of homogeneity, high IQ and high trust as well as the common religion of the mass. Now we don't have homogeneity, our IQs are rapidly falling, we don't have high trust and we don't have a common religion.
"There is no slow policy making under authoritarian regimes because there is no bureaucracy" The USSR would like to have a word with you...
One problem... The USSR is also a Democracy
When the United States was founded, only land owners were allowed to vote. The reason was because the founders figured only people who actually have skin in the game should be the ones dictating how the game is played. After all, if everyone had the right to vote, people will just vote to take from producers in order to enrich themselves.
Furthermore, our founders had great disdain for pure democracies for that reason. "Democracy is like two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner." And despite atheists claiming that we were founded on secularism, it is the founders who stated that our form of government can only work with 'a religious and moral people."
Given our current culture, I believe that democracy is a terrible system.
Finally, something good to watch.
‘Democracy’ to socialists/communists are self-evident. So the ‘German Democratic Republic’ and the ‘Democratic Republic of North Korea’ are so-called democratic because socialism, according to a socialist, represents the views of the majority since it advocates their interests.
Democracy is not voting; democracy is the concept of the demos - the people - being represented. Voting is an independent, although often aligned, concept.
This is why I do not refer to myself as a democrat or democracy advocate. I rather the term ‘voting advocate.’
Ok, so democracy has flaws. How do we minimize them (wince we will never fully get rid of those flaws)? I think combining the legislative branch with the executive branch of government would help the decision making process faster. But I do not know enough as to what consequences that would hold. I also think increasing term limits to say something between 10 and 20 years would largely get rid of the short term obsessions and maybe somewhat the party capture. Again this might have consequences that I don't know of. What do you guys think would happen should these changes be made?
Feels like just explained what Indian democracy is going through Alex, ngl
Lucky enough, I waited until a part 2 would come out to watch one after the other, not knowing until now that you combined them into one coeherant video. But it was to be known that it would be worth it, cause your great analysis into the democratic system and its breackdown about its flaws is so well done as usual. I wonder if there will be a similar analysis on Conservatism. Always a pleasure to see your videos Alex with the great work it always delivers and eagerly waiting on the next topic. KEEP IT COMING AS ALWAYS.
you put part 1 together with Part 2 thats awesome alex😁💪
My son gaslighting me into dementia, making me think I seen the video before while I did not, such trickery!
I think that a direct democracy, such as the political system in Switzerland, is the best option. Much better than the American system anyways, which can hardly be called a democracy.
I love Bill's buns
Involuntary oooh when I got this notification.
i love bills buns
Al-salaamu alaykum. Been subscribed to both your channels and found your videos to be very insightful. Keep up the good work.
Lol. I love your music & editing. +Lavender recommended me to you as one to be wise in a USA colonial cheer invading Canada 🇨🇦
imagine if organizations started to function as a democracy - so in a hospital, let's have a vote on how to proceed during surgery, everyone votes, the janitor, the cook from the canteen, the cleaner,,,,,,luckily no organization in the real world is a democracy
Idiocracy yeah
The irony of getting a Kamala Harris AND a Trump add during this video 💀
Side note, I LOVE bills buns
Excellent thank you 🙏
4:50 Democracy 3 BAD LOOP
9:18 Hell yeah I knew you'd fix it! That what BOTHER the crap out of me too!! Hahahah
democracy is the least worst system so far. What this video wants are good kings, people who are good people who can make decisions fast. Hypothetically if you had a perfect King you could never be gurantees that the heir would do just as good a job.
Thats not true. First of all, if you look at the US, it can only work for CHristian People, because the country was founded for exactly this population. And the constitution can only work if the population shares Christian values and God. The separation of Church and State was that the State cannot interfere with Church business. That's why the Country has to this day some blasphemy laws left.
Implicit power is just as bad as explicit power. A democracy can just as well be a dictatorship, a dictatorship doesn't need a single Party or a leader. All it has to do is that the Institutions give the People the illusion of choice and Power. Like in the US. Guns for example. They are just a prop and nothing more.
I rather let democracy die and have a Country wich gets ruled by one, moral Code, with one big Mythos Above them that the nation tries to reach. That's more sustainable than a democracy with a ton of different Parties, slow progress, changing faces and changing Culture every few decades. And with no shared values and goal.
If you fear bad People from coming into Power, you are f***ed either way. If you want to mitigate that, you cant allow everyone to vote just because they exist. They need to contribute something first.
I think this is why religions like christianity say that ultimately God has to be king. A perfect and eternal being is the only one that can actually make a monarchy work (hence theocracy). Not even David or Solomon could pull it off.
27:18-25 Disagreed. There is such a thing as life. Yes, even in democracy, though it's rarer.
I love Bills Buns
6:29 correction: “Merely existing as a LAW-ABIDING CITIZEN”
In some cases, criminals can vote
I love Bill's buns!
Dilemma: This soon to be brand new comer wants to blow this channel up, and hopefully help Alex make lots of $, but, as an avid listener to the Nietzsche Podcast, I understand the desire to keep something “special”, after all, & isn’t everything. But, in these ever increasingly dark times, $ is the type of armor that is needed. Good God this makes me sad, whatever/nevermind. 🐌🐌🐌
27:03 and often to terrific results too, but I guess this is not as important to mention?
27:08 sometimes through no fault of its own, say, as in the forceful destitution of the regime by outside powers after being engaged in a war with half of the world, for example.
i love bills buns- and i love this channel :)
It doesn't have to be THAT slow. What I've seen in the Netherlands is that once the decision is made tasks that were previously claimed to take ages could be done in a matter of days. But yeah, the video makes good points.
i love bill's buns!
Nice video !
Pure Facts 🔥
Take the vote away from the masses.
"i love bills buns"
I personally think that not everyone should have the right to vote, as you showed here.
Ok, but what are the upsides? I see none
Well, there is your mother, of course.
Actually, that might be a downside.
The upside is not starving under a communist regime where you're not allowed to have opinions by force of law.
@@Erowens98 Move to byzantium, reject the materialist capitalist and materialist communist
I love bills buns
Bill for 2024!!!
Genius
Ngl. 50% corporate tax woyld propably make corporations impossible
I hate Bills buns
You want to bring back Roman Republicanism? Then you'll suffer the same fate as the Romans.
The longest lasting civilization in history that only really fell once it started ignoring the values it was founded upon?
Sounds pretty fucking based to me.
What if Steve is the insane one ?
240,000 votes…..This sounds like a Biden voting count
Its not utopian idealism to give one person one vote--its a tried and tested means of ensuring that the entire population is given representation. Which yes, has downsides--downsides that are far milder than the downsides of other methods of determining merit to vote.
Milder downsides than letting millions of midwits control government policy?
That's not a mild downside, that's the whole problem.
@@whodarboilebamnames3990but that's under the assumption that smart people won't try to correct these things through things like education, and checks and balances which every single democracy has. The problem with democracy comes in when the incentive to lead people stems from money
@@looseleaf8721 And those democracies are exactly what I'm referring to as evidence that giving millions of midwits the vote results in dysfunctional governance.
@@looseleaf8721 Those democracies prove my point.
@@looseleaf8721 Except stupid people VASTLY outweigh the counterweight in this example.
Not only is it easier to be stupid and uninformed, it’s easier than ever to keep you stupid and uninformed.
And stupid and uninformed people often make brash and poor choices, which usually means they also reproduce at a MUCH higher rate.
Democracy doesnt inherently split people into groups. When people have freedom of thought, youre going to get differing views and opinions. Its simply the best way to let people hash it out.
Aristotle said it best "democracy is best when the people are virtuous"
But we did away with our traditional morals and let women vote, so democracy will not longer function.
"I love democracy, i love the republic." - Emperor Palpatine
But still , democracy is best . I support democracy .
People who dont support democracy are submissive betas who's brain too small to make decisions for themselves
Western people talking about the right to vote: :)
Western people when you mention the divine right of kings: :(
*Promosm* 😃
I LOVE bills buns
Move to China.
Move to Byzantium
@@elliotbacklund8529 Sure
@@pachacutiyupanqui9546 Move to imperial Russia
Only landowners and veterans should be allowed to vote
100% facts 🔥
I mailed in voted for Bill 1000 times.
I love bills buns
i love bills buns
i love bills buns
I love bills buns